January 15, 2011

And what's the first thing you notice — the difference between today and the speech he gave at the memorial? Right. Different color hair. Gray for the memorial, signifying the wise elder, the father figure. Back to dark hair to signify the vigorous young man, ready to forge ahead, solving problems, and restoring his party's electoral fortunes.

Restoring his party's electoral fortunes?!! Are you aghast that I would say such a thing when the literal message is "Before We are Democrats or Republicans, We are Americans"? But it's clear to me that the GOP is on the political upswing, and it's in the Democratic Party's interest to proclaim a period of low-key nonpartisanship and take away its opponents' momentum.

That is triangulation a la Clinton. Obama is now above the struggle...he is our king. The English have such a King/Queen who is above all that politics over in rude Parliament. Now Obama wants that role. That makes Palin into a Rebel who denies us the pleasure of living under a Kingdom's peaceful reign. Well, I say let's offer him up for adoption by Queen Elizabeth...she needs a beter heir anyway.

"Weekly address". Ha. Who listens to this stuff? It can't have any impact if the only people tuning in are the usual political junkies. Would Ann bother if she didn't have to find stuff to blog about? I doubt it.

I say that we need to STOP partisanship over in the NFL. The hate speech there from Jets and Ravens is upsetting folks. Right after my Falcons win the Super Bowl, then all partisanship will be outlawed. The players already get penalized for excessive celebration that sneers at the other team... we can just extend that to NFL fans and Republicans...but only after my Falcons have won it all.

I donno. There is something about the whole idea. A press conference regularly seems like a good idea and that should give the president plenty of opportunity to let everyone know what he's up to and which issues he views as a priority.

What is the point, really, of watching this man read something somebody else wrote that contains none of his own sentiments? (Does is skeeze anybody else out watching his eyes dart across the script of the teleprompter? Makes him look shifty.)

I want my Barack Obama back. The one with the fire in his belly. The one who urged us to bring a gun.

The one who urged us to get in their fucking faces.

The one who urged us to punish the fuck out of our enemies and with their defeat reward our friends.

YEAH BABY!

Punch.

Fight.

PUNISH!

Who is this fucking milquetoast pussy who just wants everybody to sing Kumbaya?

Of course, the Demos, after they make their demands, will portray themselves as being interested in nothing but brotherhood and healing while the mean old Conservatives only want to maintain the hate. What it really boils down to is anyone who doesn't do it their way is a hater.

By the way, that "Together We Thrive" slogan (because of course, memorial services for tragedies non-political in nature should have their own slogan & logo, printed on t-shirts, it's the respectful thing to do) was taken from a blog that appeared on the Organizing for America website during the 2008 presidential campaign. I found that bit of info in a post by Clarice Feldman here; the original (the slogan as used on OFA) is here.

Obama's people exploited a memorial service to stage a rally for his upcoming presidential campaign? What? Ridiculous. The mere suggestion is terribly uncivil of me, especially after our noble president took that apt occasion to admonish us all to watch what we say & raise the tone of political rhetoric (even though political rhetoric had nothing to do with that act of mass murder-- at least, not in any "simple" way). President Obama, people, let's have some applause. What a mensch.

But it's clear to me that the GOP is on the political upswing, and it's in the Democratic Party's interest to proclaim a period of low-key nonpartisanship and take away its opponents' momentum.

Definitely. That's what the Udall call for D's and R's to sit intermingled with each other is all about. Same goes for Obama's interest in talking about civility in a memorial speech made necessary (or shall we even say possible) by a nutcase motivated solely by the signals he received from Radio Grammar Command. If I didn't know better I'd say Obama & Co. are deftly pinning the blame on the right, and much of the GOP leadership at least is showing its usual talent for unilaterally disarming itself. If you'll pardon the expression.

As for a couple questions above about the radio addresses, yes, unfortunately, these have been around for ages. The only thing on the air getting lower ratings are the responses by the opposition.

Great. So the left overreacts and overreaches and it only accomplishes two things: fostering sympathy for its opponents and nurturing a false equivalence within the body politic. Well done, Democrats.

Now we’ve settled into the by-any-means-necessary argument: anything that gets us to focus on the rhetoric and tamp it down is a good thing. But a wrong in the service of righteousness is no less wrong, no less corrosive, no less a menace to the very righteousness it’s meant to support.

You can’t claim the higher ground in a pit of quicksand.

Concocting connections to advance an argument actually weakens it. The argument for tonal moderation has been done a tremendous disservice by those who sought to score political points in the absence of proof.

Charles Blow is as left-wing as they get and he's arguing the Dems stepped in it! What's Ed Schultz(psychotalker expert) gonna say?

Very funny and you used the actual names of some Administration insiders.

It might be interesting, Professor, to use those two names in a poll and ask people to guess who they are:1- rap star2- sitcom actor3- Beltway pundit4- Cabinet member5- Ball fluffer for Prez6- White House speechwriter

I thought my syntax might be a bit ambiguous, but pronouns do that in English. But it's hard to be absolutely dead on without the parenthetical use of the noun all over again, which many of us do all the time in spoken English. But it looks dumb on paper, like pidgin. In short, sometimes I skimp on clarity for the sake of prosody.

Be that as it may, to answer your request directly, they = the Republicans.

University of Arizona spokesperson Jennifer Fitzenberger told me that the shirts were, indeed, provided by the University. “The University wanted to give people something to remember that symbolized community spirit and continued the event’s positive energy into the future,” she said.

According to Fitzenberger, the shirts were designed by a University of Arizona student, and they cost about $60,000. “The University will pay for them,” she noted. “No tuition, state allocations, tax dollars or student fees will be used.”

Many have also wondered how the shirts were produced so quickly. According to Fitzenberger, “The UA BookStores made the arrangements to produce the shirts. The BookStores knew a vendor that could turn them around fast.”

According to Fitzenberger, the shirts were designed by a University of Arizona student, and they cost about $60,000. “The University will pay for them,” she noted. “No tuition, state allocations, tax dollars or student fees will be used.”

I did, Gopher, thanks. As I said, I wonder if OFA will ultimately pay for those shirts. It does not seem a wise investment for a public university.Perhaps living in CA, where public tuition keeps going up, has made me quite sensitive.

Original comment with the links has now disappeared. Here it is again:

Gopher has left a new comment on the post ""Before We are Democrats or Republicans, We are Am...":

University of Arizona spokesperson Jennifer Fitzenberger told me that the shirts were, indeed, provided by the University. “The University wanted to give people something to remember that symbolized community spirit and continued the event’s positive energy into the future,” she said.

According to Fitzenberger, the shirts were designed by a University of Arizona student, and they cost about $60,000. “The University will pay for them,” she noted. “No tuition, state allocations, tax dollars or student fees will be used.”

Many have also wondered how the shirts were produced so quickly. According to Fitzenberger, “The UA BookStores made the arrangements to produce the shirts. The BookStores knew a vendor that could turn them around fast.”

If the university paid for the t-shirts, how can it say none of the money came from tuiion, etc? That is BS.

Endowments or other gifts from private donors or funds raised by such groups as Alumni are possibilities. There are others. The university ought to specify or provide a good reason why it cannot. It could be lying. Or it could be telling the truth. Complete facts are as yet unavailable.

"I agree, the university should make it clear. Especially if there was a political donation behind the funding."

Have you seen one of the actual shirts? I bet you haven't seen one up close front and back ... and there's a reason that you have not.

The Obama-friendly media are embargoing images of the shirts because, along with the "Together We Thrive" campaign theme taken directly from Obama's political arm Organizing For America are the other logos the press isn't mentioning.

Have a look at the bottom of the shirt (assuming you can find an image in the press). "Rocking America and Rocking the Vote" is a common theme of the DNC, and it's right there also printed on the memorial T-shirt schwag distributed by Obama's friends in the academy.

You must ask yourself ... why is the mainstream media embargoing actual close-up images of the printed t-shirts.

The reason is that if you see one of the real shirts, you'd quickly realize they're nothing more than campaign props for the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) Barack Obama paid for by one of his core constituencies ... the University of Arizona, recipient of billions of federal tax dollars withheld from your paycheck every week.

That's right ... the funniest part of this story is that they're paying for all these campaign props with YOUR fucking money!

"It's already been incontestably shown, beyond any hope of rebuttal, that The Boy King's administration flat-out lied, bald-faced, about 'being surprised by all the cheering and applauding.'"

I disagree that it's "incontestably shown, beyond any hope of rebuttal." To be lazy and copy-and-paste a couple of comments I left at Bookworm Room:

It looks to me like a close-caption feed, transcription in real time. Either that or it is a similar measure to help the hard of hearing based on the pre-written transcript, and if that’s what it was then they obviously expected applause. I don’t think it’s actually a prompt though (although there could certainly be a positive feedback loop thing going on). Bottom line I think you’re likely making more of this than is there — but if the past week has taught us anything it is to await the evidence before firming up our conclusions.

Yabbut it may very well be it’s not intended as a prompt at all. That is to say, it may be reporting to the hard of hearing that there is applause going on, as opposed to telling people they need to applause now. This is especially likely, IMO, if this is a feed which is both in the arena and going out on TV, because hard of hearing people who are watching in their living room would know there was applause happening that way.Is this not a little bit like what happened last week (albeit much much lesser in degree)? We see something, interpret it so it jibes with our pre-existing sentiments about a political party or figure and run with it. It’s either the Obama White House lying about whether they expected applause, and BTW being pretty stupid about how their lie got exposed — on a public Jumbotron (!) — or it’s something like a close caption. And we immediately gravitate to the former, based on what we think of Obama/Dems. But the evidence is not in, not that I know of.

And BTW there were ‘pubs in the room too — Gov. Brewer was there for instance — and it unlikely they would have kept quiet about applause prompts in the hours and days following the event.

Of course, this is the next big thing sweeping the right-wing blog world. I'm expecting it to be on Fox News by the end of the day.

I really cannot tell whether the people pushing this are really this stupid, or if they just make up anything they can because they know no one on the Right will call them out on it. Perhaps Kent can clue me in on that - are you really this stupid, or just deliberately lying, hoping that enough people will believe your ridiculous lie?

Althouse wrote:...it's in the Democratic Party's interest to proclaim a period of low-key nonpartisanship...

Nonpartisanship, yes. Civility, no. When the Republican house calmly goes about its partisan business, the Democratic Party will quickly jettison civility. They will claim provocation, of course. Nonpartisanship works in favor of the weaker party. Civility works in favor of the stronger.

Traditional Guy wrote (way up there at the top): Obama is now above the struggle...he is our king. The English have such a King/Queen who is above all that politics over in rude Parliament. Now Obama wants that role.

That's a really astute point. The King may be above the fray (or at least strive to be above it). The King is also completely ineffectual.

Not only does Obama want that role, but it is the only role he knows how to play well. It is, in fact, the role that he played for Nancy Pelosi.

Hundreds shop at gun show a week later since they now realize that Sheriff Dupnick is too busy with immigration politics that he can't even protect them from the crazies shooting up the fucking Safeway.

Kent said: "... and yet, the White House steadfastly refuses to make what plainly ought to be (if true) a simple, straightforward statement to that effect."

Apparently, the White House is supposed to come out with statements to deny every single lie made up by some blogger. Of course, this would take up every moment of every day, because this is all the right-wing blogs do now - make up controversies and hope some of the dirt they've thrown sticks.

And they're "steadfastly refusing" to make a statement on this? Who exactly is asking the White House for a statement on this? Doug Ross? Jim Hoft? Has there been anyone other than a few idiot bloggers who have come out with this "accusation?"

OK then, I'll play this game. Kent has steadfastly refused to deny that he enjoys torturing and killing animals. Of course, no one has really made this accusation, and no one could expect him to come out with a statement denying this. But he has steadfastly refused to deny it!

I guess you probably think the White House should come out with a statement that says "Barack Obama is not the Muslim lovechild of Malcolm X," since Pam Gellar (who, of course, jumped on this story like you) did make that accusation during the campaign. Why has he steadfastly refused to issue a statement denying this accusation from a blogger? He must really be the secret Muslim lovechild of Malcolm X!!!!

And of course, you end with a "sock" accusation. Funny, since I have been here commenting, under only this name, long before you ever were. We all know the "sock puppet" accusation is the last resort of the fool who has absolutely nothing to back up his argument.

The president and his followers have demonstrated their belief that simply his presence or bloviation on a given subject will create 'change'. Indeed, the more he talks, the less effective he is. He is not 'transformative', or anything even close. Hackneyed, failed policy and an ear of tin.

If any of us were given a Nobel for doing nothing, we would be well-served to just shut up and accept.

And with that childish comment, you have conceded that you have absolutely no response to my reasonable argument.

And you're still steadfastly denying that you enjoy torturing and killing animals. At this point, your silence on this point pretty much proves you as guilty as Obama putting "applause signs" on the jumbotron.

At this point, any statements to the contrary will be taken as lies and damage control. Pretty sick that you enjoy torturing and killing animals.

Fuller got arrested for being disorderly, mostly. But yeah, "You're dead!" is a death threat. It will be a wrist slap and no more. He hasn't actually been charged, has he? Arrested isn't charged. No doubt he's still on morphine.

Funny thing, really, all of this. And there is no way anyone is going to let it go either. How is it that a person is so irrational that they can blame a horrible tragedy on supposed violent speech and then think that it's okay to say to someone, you're dead?

Different color hair. Gray for the memorial, signifying the wise elder, the father figure. Back to dark hair to signify the vigorous young man, ready to forge ahead, solving problems, and restoring his party's electoral fortunes.

I have previously noticed the revolving grayness of the Obama hair.

Is this not exceedingly creepy?

The guy can dye his hair if he wants, but changing it to suit the occasion?

And, yes, he did not want any competition from clergy. He knew the University's president would not be a problem.

Everywhere he goes he creates hatred and his followers make death threats.

At least now the cops are willing to arrest the Democrats making the death threats.

Now if only they'll follow through with an actual prosecution of the Democrat who made death threats at the memorial and a meaningful jail sentence, and when Obama is removed from office, maybe our nation can begin the healing process.

How is it that a person is so irrational that they can blame a horrible tragedy on supposed violent speech and then think that it's okay to say to someone, you're dead

It only looks irrational because you believe the goal is to limit violence caused by hateful rhetoric. But thats not the goal of the Left.

Their goal is to get permission(socially, morally, etc) to use violence against their enemies. They do so by falsely accusing them of formenting violence. Then responding "in kind" doesn't violate their moral code.

I'm offended that Obama felt the need to interject himself into a local matter, again. This rampage was the product of a sick individual. The only reason the Congresswoman was involved is because she represented authority. Thus, Obama's participation is just furthering the notion that this was a product of our incivility caused by conservatives objecting to their country being taken over by stealth socialist. Were any of the victims Native Americans? I think not. So why the Native American spiritual routine?

I will steadfastly defend Ann Althouse and the heated rhetoric on this blog: I believe it had nothing to do with riling up the shooter. Nothing at all, pure coincidence. I will also steadfastly repeat the news I heard that Ann has never beaten her husband. Ever. At anything. Not even at cards.

And spot on to Quaestor said...

Bipartisanship always means Republicans must acquiesce to the Democrats whether they are in the minority or the majority, but especially when they have the majority.

"I'm offended that Obama felt the need to interject himself into a local matter, again."

I'm undecided.

On the one hand she is a member of the House so it's not entirely a local matter and may have been appropriate. Certainly he had to do or say something. I'm a little bit tempted to say that, if I were a Presidential adviser, a PR person, that I'd suggest that the president *attend* the memorial but not speak, and refrain from any speech-making over the event that's greater than 5 minutes long. It just doesn't take that long to express sorrow and urge people to come together instead of cast blame.

"They do so by falsely accusing them of formenting violence. Then responding "in kind" doesn't violate their moral code."

Precisely.

And it has always been this way. Democrats, you see, need to see their violence in terms of self-defense. And so they invent "right-wing violence" where there is none so that they can take their frustrating electoral losses out on society.

Before they'll give up power, Democrats will seek to destroy America. It's their way, or the highway.

The quicker we remove them from all roles where they have influence the better - especially in our schools. It's probably already too late to avoid a bloodbath that they will initiate after laying the groundwork by demonizing ordinary Americans, people like Sarah Palin or Joe The Plumber.

They need ordinary Americans to be "evil" so that they'll have the courage to crank up the ovens.

I see Insty has picked up on this latest choice morsel of dumbfuckery. Obama dies his hair for different occasions, cause this one lady said so on her blog. How phony is this guy? Speaking at memorials and addressing the public and shit. Who does he think he is, the President of the United States? Who made him President, pfff?

I can't wait till Obama is reelected and your fat heads explode daily for another 4 years.

A stridently hypocritical complaint never uttered by any leftist, anywhere, whenever said blog in question is one found on the DailyKos... or Democratic Underground... or Firedoglake... or... or... or...

franglo: We might just decide to reelect him. It won't make any difference because the Senate will be Republican then as well as the House. He can dye his hair pink for all it will matter. And he can prattle on and on and on and on

"Obama dies his hair for different occasions, cause this one lady said so on her blog."

No, because she linked to video evidence of it that your eyes simply refuse to acknowledge because it would cause you to have to look into the pit of despair that you know is there. That you know is the final end of all of this.

Look - everything this President does is a calculated political step. All these "experts" evaluating his words and actions as moving to center or to the left or right are padding the same con. This President is a an experienced liar and an inexperienced leader. Don't you think our enemies overseas see this?

Why yes, it's completely appropriate to write an entire post comparing two - and only two - different pictures/videos of someone in completely different settings shot in different lighting, at different distances, and with different technology. And then extrapolate into completely silly speculation...he must be dying his hair!

Of course it's been widely noted that Obama's hair has been going gray since the campaign, and different pictures show it in different ways.

"That is triangulation a la Clinton. Obama is now above the struggle...he is our king. The English have such a King/Queen who is above all that politics over in rude Parliament. Now Obama wants that role. That makes Palin into a Rebel who denies us the pleasure of living under a Kingdom's peaceful reign. Well, I say let's offer him up for adoption by Queen Elizabeth...she needs a beter heir anyway."

Interesting. Especially since Obama was Admittedly born a British Citizen (since his father was Kenyan) Here's the relevant admission from "Fight The Smears":

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Hmmm. "HIS" Kenyan Citizenship? You mean he actually held Kenyan citizenship (he actually held it until January 1983, according to the BNA 1981)? What about the BRITISH Citizenship? That's what he was BORN with, he didn't just LOSE it when Kenya gained independence. So says the BNA 1948 (he would have the opportunity a majority to claim British citizenship), AND of course, that dual allegiance at birth is why he's NOT an eligible natural born Citizen. Funny how that British Citizenship gets lost in the shuffle.

If you remember, he made a trip to Pakistan in 1981. Why are we not allowed to know which passports he held? If he traveled on a British passport (probably much easier to that Commonwealth country) he could be a British Citizen TO THIS DAY, as he would have affirmed British citizenship at the age of majority. Why does he say nothing about the British citizenship he says he inherited at birth?

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

Notice that this Organizing for America posting NEVER claims that Obama is an eligible Natural Born Citizen. Here's the passage:

"Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."

No, THE TRUTH IS (that's when you know they are lying), that the question is whether Obama is a natural born Citizen, not whether he is an American citizen. As a Constitutional scholar, Obama knows the correct term is NATURAL born Citizen, a term of art. Why does he only claim to be a "Native Citizen"?

There are a lot of admissions right there in our faces, yet the media, and supposedly knowledgeable pundits don't look.

How can a man born a Brit and holding Kenyan citizenship into adulthood, and possibly British citizenship to this day be a natural born Citizen (a "creature of our own", or as L. Tribe says "born WITHIN the territory AND Allegiance of a nation") eligible to be POTUS?

In sniggering commemoration of the epic kicking, screaming, pants-wetting, leftist schoolgirl tantrums indulged in earlier on this very thread, in response to even the mildest possible criticism of He Who Giveth the T-Shirts Unto Us, Yea Verily:

And President Reagan dyed his hair. He never went ‘gray’ as president.

Actually, probably not. His barber repeatedly stated that Reagan naturally did not get very many gray hairs, maybe 5% or so, so it looked dark, but had enough that the barber could tell that it wasn't dyed.

There are genes for this. A friend of mine, who is now almost 90, and also mostly Irish, still had fully dark hair at 75, but now has some gray on the sides. It is somewhat humorous, since her youngest daughter, in her mid-50s, has more gray hair than her mother does - but her father was white by 50.

Girlfriend's father is in his 80s, and is showing just a little gray now. He is French, and that gene runs through his family (and she claims to have it - but I know that she is vain enough to dye her hair if she actually had gray in it).

Of course, I am jealous - I started noticeably graying in my early 40s, and am mostly white now at 60. But at least I have my hair, which seems to be the other alternative.

The problem with President Obama here is that a lot of people just don't think that it is manly for men to dye their hair, and, in particular, to go back and forth between dark and gray. I think that he would do best, if he is graying, to just let it do so naturally. That would show confidence in who he is, and not a willingness to change with the circumstances. And, in men, it shows maturity, which translates into wisdom.

Wow. It's pretty amazing how ridiculous this entire post is. Although I'm sure the lighting in that auditorium and the examples from the Oval Office or Press Room in the White House are exactly the same. Moronic.